I'm sure that some will have some problems and claim that there could ahve been some random itinerant rabbi that could have be the kernel for the JC myth but that's *never* the JC that Christians are talking about and worshipping.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

Is it any surprise in the nagative review of the book the following quotes exist:

Quote

A read of Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity and Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony offer solid credible historical arguments as to how a radically monotheistic Jewish community would so quickly espouse the worship and veneration of Jesus as Divine, despite the fact that this would be considered a huge heretical declaration to Jewish ideals. Bauckham makes a wicked case for the Gospels as accounts of eyewitnesses.

oh and how his favorite authors reference some of the Anthony Flew miasma.

Quote

For example, while discussing the reference to Jesus in Josephus' "Antiquities" XVIII.3.4 he dismisses the idea that most of the passage is original to Josephus and was simply added to by Christians as a hopeful theory by "wishful apologists". In fact, it is the majority consensus of most modern scholars. I'm sure eminent non-Christian scholars like Bart Ehrman and Geza Vermes would be amused at being described as "wishful apologists" by this amateur hobbyist.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

I'm sure that some will have some problems and claim that there could ahve been some random itinerant rabbi that could have be the kernel for the JC myth but that's *never* the JC that Christians are talking about and worshipping.

But aren't there two different books here then? The biblical Jesus of faithful Christians is a very different (and much easier) target than a historical 'kernel' Jesus. If one is attacking the first version, it's not necessary to go "full Myther." It would be nice to have an easy-to-read book aimed at Christians and the uncommitted that demolishes the mythical bible version of Jesus (like an anti-Josh McDowell) without the added baggage of full historical mythicism.

(Not that I'm against people making a mythicist case, it just seems like a separate line of argument that could stand on its own. It often acts as a distraction when the two are combined...)

Jedweber you should read our book below. It gives you the historical Jesus you asked for.

People should make a clear distinction between the Christian Jesus and the historical Jesus. Historical analysis of the new testament can show how and why the Christian Jesus developed from the historical Jesus.

Jedweber you should read our book below. It gives you the historical Jesus you asked for.

People should make a clear distinction between the Christian Jesus and the historical Jesus. Historical analysis of the new testament can show how and why the Christian Jesus developed from the historical Jesus.

It might be helpful if WWGHA put our book on its pdf book page.

Hey Foxy. Just reading over your book. I'm impressed. Just for fun, if you like, I could forward the book to a good aquaintence of mine. He's the Religions Editor at Skeptic Magazine. I'd be interested to see his critique. I'm assuming you would too, but I'll wait for your response.

Logged

Religion. It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion." -- Charlie Chaplin

Hey Foxy. Just reading over your book. I'm impressed. Just for fun, if you like, I could forward the book to a good aquaintence of mine. He's the Religions Editor at Skeptic Magazine. I'd be interested to see his critique. I'm assuming you would too, but I'll wait for your response.

I read quite a bit of http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V but was not impressed with the depth nor the lack of references nor bald facts. This one certainly took my eye

Quote

Now that we have seen that Jesus had no power or knowledge from God, we can ask what did he actually do? We know for certain that he was executed by the Romans who made Israel a part of the Roman Empire. Jesus was executed on a Roman cross and his crime was written on the cross.

xulonxoo'-lonFrom another form of the base of G3582; timber (as fuel or material); by implication a stick, club or tree or other wooden article or substance: - staff, stocks, tree, wood.

See also Acts 10:39 and 13:29 and 1 Peter 2:24

The very idea of crucifixion does not this sit well with whatever crime the alleged Christ was charged. Initially, the charge was blasphemy but (a) the punishment for this was stoning to death: See the fate of St Stephen (b) (point removed for lack of research)(c ) It was Passover and the Sanheddrin would not have been sitting in judgment. (d)The trial encroached upon the Sabbath. The proceedings were conducted on the day preceding a Jewish Sabbath, also on the First Day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Eve of the Passover, therefore it was illegal.[1](e) Even before Jesus' trial began the law was broken because His arrest was illegal. The Jewish law prohibited any part of a legal proceeding in capital offenses to take place at night, and Jesus was arrested at night.[2](f) Despite the Sanheddrin comprising 71 members, one member, Caiaphas, examined him alone and in secret[3](g) There had been no morning sacrifice[4](h)The trial of Jesus was illegal because it was begun and concluded in one day. Before the finding of guilty could be decreed "a night had to intervene between the trial and the decree," during which the judges could sleep, fast, meditate and pray. Yet the Gospels record clearly discloses that Jesus was arrested, tried and executed within a single day. (i) The Condemnation of Jesus was illegal because the verdict of the Sanhedrin was unanimous, so Jesus should have been acquitted.[5]

The alleged Jesus was then taken to Pilate who is said not to have been able to see an offence.[6]

Pilate asks why the Jews had not dealt with the matter themselves, "I have asked for a specific charge against the man. You have given me an equivocal answer. I imply the crime is against your own laws. If so, you try Him. I do not wish to meddle" (John 18:31).[7]" However, Pilate, shrugs his shoulders and is relieved when he disovers that Jesus is from Galilee[8] and thus he has no authority over him.

Jesus is now taken to Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea (circa 4to 36 or 39 AD Mat:14:3-12, Mark 6:17-29 and Luke 23:5-12), who also has no authority over Jesus and sends him back to Pilate. Pilate discussed the matter with the various authorities, including Herod Antipas, and still could find no fault[9]

There then follows an erroneous claim:Lu:23:17: (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.) - There is no truth in this whatsoever. A straightforward lie, told to people who knew no better.

Now allegedly, for the sake of the unruly mob, Pilate authorised the execution of a man who had been shown to have done nothing.

Looking back on the above, you have to wonder how it was that the Gospel writers, who probably had some Jewish blood in them, did not know how the Sanheddrin worked nor how Herod Antipas's authority worked, nor that there was no "release of prisoners for the Passover."

You can only conclude that the entire story is rubbish and it never happened at all.

The Law stated, "Court must not be held on the Sabbath, or any holy day." (Betza, chapter Vol. II)."They shall not judge on the eve of the Sabbath, nor on that of any festival" (Mishna, Sanhedrin IV. 1.)

"A capital offense must be tried during the day and suspended at night" (Mishna in "Sanhedrin" Vol.1) and "Criminal cases can be acted upon by the various courts during the day time only." (Mendelsohn in "Criminal Jurisprudence of Ancient Hebrews" p. 112).

The Law stated, "Be not a sole judge, for there is no sole judge but One." (Mishna, in "Pirke Aboth" IV and "An accused man must never be subjected to private or secret examination, let in his perplexity, he furnish damaging testimony against himself." (Salvado in, "Institutions de Moise" pp. 365-366).

Paradoxically, the Law stated, "A simultaneous and unanimous verdict of guilt rendered on the day of the trial has the effect of an acquittal." (Mendelsohn in"Criminal Juris- prudence of the Ancient Hebrews" p. 141). And "If none of the judges defend the culprit, i.e. all pronounce him guilty, having no defender in the court, the verdict guilty was invalid and the sentence of death could not be executed." (Rabbi Wise in "Martyrdom of Jesus" p. 74)

Lu:23:13: And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people,Lu:23:14: Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:Lu:23:15: No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.Lu:23:16: I will therefore chastise him, and release him.

« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 06:54:05 AM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Graybeard,Have you ever brought these points up in your debates w scholarly christians? I would be interested in how they refute those points.....or do you have a refrence of a scholar refuting ...or explaining away...those historical facts?

It is understandable that some atheists deny everything about the bible including the crucifixion but it is minority view with very little weight.

It is really just an emotional reaction. People who believe in disbelief are religious people without a religion. Knowledge is the true foundation of disbelief. I have heard some Christians say that atheism is really a belief system and I have certainly talked with atheists who have the same characteristics as religious people and who just deny everything out of hand.

No atheist should fear the results of historical research on the bible as a halfway house to Christianity.

No atheist should fear the results of historical research on the bible as a halfway house to Christianity.

We don't fear results of historical research. But we do look at research without the predisposed belief system from religions that claim to know stuff. There may indeed be historical accuracies sprinkled among the pages of various writings in the collection called The Bible, however, that in no way means that a conclusion such as a human coming back from the dead, or living in a fish/whale, or a talking donkey or snake, or making lots of food magically from very little, or walking on water, etc.

Peer reviewed, critical research is always interesting to consider. But it will never give credence to made-up, superstitious babble.

I think some atheists do fear to admit that there was a crucifixion because they think it necessarily implies a resurrection.

One does not necessarily follow from the other. For example it takes three to four days to die on cross and no one would normally die in an afternoon. I think in Indonesia they actually nail people to a cross for the afternoon as part of their celebrations.

I could cite other reasons why the crucifixion does not imply resurrection but that would lead on to the whole content of a degree course in individual discussion. Reference material is better for that.

Yes, but you made the statement: "I think some atheists do fear to admit that there was a crucifixion because they think it necessarily implies a resurrection", and I've asked you why it is that you think/believe that to be so.

I suggest that any atheist who knows a little about that particular culture at that particular time & place would know that crucifixion was commonplace.

I think some atheists do fear to admit that there was a crucifixion because they think it necessarily implies a resurrection.

Do you have anything substantial to back that theory? Or is it simply an opinion that we may dismiss as unsubstantiated?

Quote

I could cite other reasons why the crucifixion does not imply resurrection but that would lead on to the whole content of a degree course in individual discussion. Reference material is better for that.

But you will agree a death is necessary for a crucifixion, and that a life is necessary for a death? Are you suggesting that there was a person called Jesus who existed (broadly as described in the Bible) and who may or may not have been the Son of God?

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

I think some atheists do fear to admit that there was a crucifixion because they think it necessarily implies a resurrection.

It is entirely plausible to me, that a man named Jesus was crucified by the Romans. However, there is very little evidence outside of biblical writings that suggest he would have been any more than a common criminal (in the eyes of the Roman authorities), and was crucified as such. If the event happened at all, it did not gain any real attention until many years later. You would think that if there was a living god wandering around performing actual miracles, that the Romans would have written about it.